Prior to this, the initial response of the common law to claims relating to nervous shock, was to deny responsibility. In the case of Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] Lord Steyn stated that the area of Tort Law relating to psychiatric trauma is rather complex. The House of Lords reversed the Court of Appeal decision in Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1997] 1 All ER 540, which had found that the plaintiffs were primary victims, as rescuers. However, in this case, Lord Hope[36] adopted the explanation given by Lord Oliver in Alcock and held that, since there was no sufficient close tie of love between the claimants and the deceased, so therefore the claimants were not entitled to establish a successful claim for psychiatric illness. The father subsequently suffered nervous shock as a result of witnessing the accident. The issue of communication by television was raised but not adequately dealt with. . foreseeability of psychiatric shock needed to be considered. It was the case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire,[11]where Lord Oliver for the first time drew the attention to the distinction between the primary and secondary victims. The issue before the court was whether any person is entitled to establish a claim for psychiatric illness which has been sustained through the fear or apprehension of physical injury to others. The courts in different cases have recognized different type of psychiatric illnesses. 34 [1996] 1 AC 155. Others identified bodies in temporary constructed morgues in the stadium. HL dismissed their claims since they were suffering extreme grief, not a psychiatric illness. Both of them used to go out for drink once a week. This successful claim, led to a further limitation being developed, namely, that it would not be sufficient to fullfil the proximity requirement to be told of the accident by a third party. The House of Lords in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police clarified that rescuers are not a special category of primary victim. ~M}o"bR[ A\euA. . In this case, he categorized the victims in a psychiatric injury cases in to two main categories- the primary and secondary victims. In the case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire,[6] Lord Ackner defined the term nervous shock or psychiatric illness as Sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event, which violently agitates the mind. On the other hand, Lord Keith defined psychiatric illness as Sudden assault on the nervous system. Facts. They said that the defendants negligent treatment allowed the attack to take place. The claimants (C) were all police officers who had been on duty within Hillsborough Stadium during the eponymous disaster, in which 95 Liverpool FC fans were killed and many others injured. The horrible accident took place when the employees were removing a big thin piece of metal sheeting which was lying on the south-bound carriageway. Pages 14 Course Hero uses AI to attempt to automatically extract content from documents to surface to you and others so you can study better, e.g., in search results, to enrich docs, and more. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. . The distinction between primary and secondary victims is well worth noting. There was a fear that it would be difficult for the courts to distinguish between a genuine claim and a fictitious claim, and also the fear that if one person recovered, this would in turn lead to a possible floodgate of claims. So, in this situation- Singleton LJ. If you are the original writer of this dissertation and no longer wish to have your work published on the UKDiss.com website then please: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! . He became so upset with his personal life and as a result his marriage life was affected. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas. Looking for a flexible role? Frost v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police [1997] 3 WLR 1194. A number of claimants had witnessed the horrific scenes on the television or had been informed by a third party. However, Mr. Bankes, Atkin and Sargant L.JJ. The House of Lords however, held that for the purposes of distinction between primary and secondary victims, that rescuers were not in a special position in the law. But he further took the view that, there is no reported English case decision where it has been established that whether a defendant owes any duty of care towards the claimant for not causing him a psychiatric injury by self inflicted injuries. White v Chief Constable of the Yorkshire Police [1998] 3 WLR 1509. Although, there was a rebuttable presumption that, in some cases, the close tie of love may exist between the engaged couples which might be even stronger than that of the married couples. Fletcher v Commissioners for Public Works [2003] 2 I.L.R.M.94. He continued that, the claimants nervous shock was too remote as a head of damage. The plaintiffs in the case were police officers who suffered psychiatric injury after witnessing the Hillsborough stadium disaster. Prior to the Page v Smith case it was assumed that reasonable foreseeability of psychiatric illness was required in all cases of negligently inflicted psychiatric illness and that all such plaintiffs must be persons of normal disposition.. Firm Rankings. The case centred upon the liability of the police for the nervous shock suffered in consequence of the events of the Hillsborough disaster . [45] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition. Mental Health can have a positive or negative impact on our behaviour, decision-making, and actions, as well as our general health and well-being. 2 Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310. Cited Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police HL 28-Nov-1991 The plaintiffs sought damages for nervous shock. . She was admitted to the hospital and when operated a dead foetus was removed. . In this case, the claimant-namely Mr. McCarthy also lost his half brother in the Hillsborough disaster. [55] As per Denning LJ [1953] 1 All ER 617 at page 625. The English law of negligence in relation to nervous shock or psychiatric illness is often considered as unfair and unsatisfactory by the defendants, claimants and even by the judges. Sometimes, the policy consideration came on the way of the secondary victims as an obstacle which did not let the courts give decisions in their favour. had introduced the Special Rule . Abstract. The 2003 decision of Fletcher v Commissioners for Public Works clearly demonstrates this point. According to Stephenson LJ[69], although the claimants psychiatric illness was reasonably forseeable by the defendants and they owed a duty of care to the claimant, but it was policy considerations that hampered the claimant from establishing a claim and recover damages for psychiatric illness. In this instance police officers were seeking compensation on the basis that they had suffered psychiatric illness as a result of rescuing victims after the crush. . [25] As per Parker LJ [1991] 3 All ER 88 at 92-94. Published: 21st Jan 2022. Bourhill v Young[49] was a case of Edinborough fishwife who suffered nervous shock as a result of the negligence of the defendant motorcyclist who brought about a collision and made the claimant so upset that she had a miscarriage. Although, according to the guidelines of television broadcasting, none of the television channels highlighted any scenes that relate to the dying or suffering of the spectators in that disaster[24]. The recent case of Crystal Taylor v A Novo (UK) Ltd CA (2013) re-examined the particular issue of proximity, together with the underlying policy considerations. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455 at 500. . In my view the only sensible general strategy for the courts is to say thus far and no further. His Lordship continued that, the court will not interfere with the decision given by Salmon LJ and accept that the defendant was liable for the boys accident which resulted in a psychiatric injury to the claimant. Thus, there could be no duty of care owed to C for purely psychiatric harm, as they were not at any point in any physical danger. She alleged that, as result of suffering from psychiatric illness she had a change in her personality that seriously affected her capabilities as a mother and wife. According to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the clamant was not close to the place of the accident who was informed by someone of that after two hours. Although the boy arrived home eventually but his mother suffered from a nervous shock[45]. .Considered Campbell v North Lanarkshire Council and Scottish Power Plc SCS 30-Jun-1999 . Donaghue v Stevenson [1932] A.C. 532. if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[320,100],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3','ezslot_5',114,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3-0'); Cited by: Cited Keen v Tayside Contracts OHCS 26-Feb-2003 The claimant sought damages for post traumatic stress disorder. The lead case on secondary victim claims is Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] which sets out a 4-stage test known as the control mechanisms. However, considering the surrounding circumstances of the present case (King v Phillips), McNair J. Held: Where an accident is of a particular . According to him, it is not necessary that such class of person, to whom the defendant owes liability, have to be spouse or parent and child. All of the aforementioned cases demonstrate clearly that claims relating to nervous shock are indeed highly complex and, in my opinion, some of the outcomes seriously flawed. 182 0 obj <>/Filter/FlateDecode/ID[<86982BFA68EE9E4388F223A8853489C3><2512F63CFFE58F428782346685734F90>]/Index[164 60]/Info 163 0 R/Length 98/Prev 536609/Root 165 0 R/Size 224/Type/XRef/W[1 3 1]>>stream They used to walk to and from their workplace quite frequently. The House of Lords (by a majority) in Page v Smith, enhanced the recovery of the primary victim over the secondary victim. Before discussing the above cases, it is essential to give a brief outline of the term nervous shock and its history. However, after couple of hours he received a phone call from someone and learnt that both his brothers got killed at the disaster. On August 18, 1955, the defendant, namely Mr. Sanderson went to the garage along with the claimant and his son for the purpose of collecting his car as they had decided to go out for holiday. On the basis of the facts of this case, three preliminary questions arose which were as follows: The first issue was, whether the defendant (the primary victim/ son of the claimant) owes any duty of care towards the claimant (secondary victim) for not causing any psychiatric injury by self inflicted physical injuries. It was held by Salmon J. More news from across Yorkshire In the present case, the claimants family members including her husband and three children had a severe road accident. The later case Hambrook v Stoke Bros, highlights a number of other issues relating to duty of care and further developed claims for nervous shock .In this case, damages were awarded even though the person suffering nervous shock did not witness the incident, but was close by, and the shock was suffered as a result of fear, not for her own safety, but that of her child. Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1997] 3 WLR 1194. The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire has admitted liability in negligence in respect of the deaths and physical injuries. He further took the view that, the cases where there is insufficient proximity of relationship must be very carefully considered before allowing the claimants for psychiatric injury claims[20]. An action was brought by her husband for the loss of benefit of her services. The claimants (C) were all police officers who had been on duty within Hillsborough Stadium during the eponymous disaster, in which 95 Liverpool FC fans were killed and many others injured. The defendant admitted that they were negligent in relation to the death of her daughter as well as injury to her rest of the family members but simply denied any kind of liabilty for negligently causing psychiatric injury to her. [14] Secondary Victims and Nervous Shock by M Dunne (2000) BR 383. Kearns J [2003] stated the category of relationships entitled to successfully claim damages for nervous shock should be tightly restricted.. .Cited Glen and Other v Korean Airlines Company Ltd QBD 28-Mar-2003 The claimant sought damages for personal injuries under the Act. After the disaster took place, the match was abandoned and he started looking for his brothers but couldnt find them out. Hearing about it from someone else would not suffice. His brother in law and his nephew also had been present in the football ground who was watching the live match from the terrace. Info: 9733 words (39 pages) Dissertation White (Frost) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455 (Hillsborough, police on duty) The Control Mechanisms - Alcock 1. He went to the psychiatrist and took medical treatment. [26] Davie M (1992) Negligently Inflicted Psychiatric Illness; The Hillsborough Case in the House of Lords 43 Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 237. That was a very strong windy day when the tragic accident took place. Like the case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, this case arose from the disaster that occurred at Hillsborough football stadium in Sheffield in the FA cup semi-final match between Liverpool and . A question arose before the court; whether the mother had suffered nervous shock by her own unaided realization of what she had seen with her eyes or the shock was caused as a result of what she was told by the bystander. It is an important matter of discussion what is actually meant by psychiatric illness or if there is any specific definition of psychiatric illness under the English law of tort. .Cited Mullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 15-May-2001 The claimant police officer was severely injured making an arrest. In Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1992) 1 AC 310 the ordinary rules of negligence were applied to allegedly negligent crowd control by the police. As far as the secondary victims claim for psychiatric illness is concerned, Lord Keith[27] in this case took the opinion that- he must establish a close tie of love and affection with the primary victim. The Plaintiff had a pre-existing chronic fatigue syndrome, which manifested itself from time . He then decided to leave Gotham for a while after having a parent's association, and later the police, on his case (which resulted in Gordon becoming alcoholic and cheating on his wife) and had to shift his focus on the countryside, spending most of his time in scouts camps, wearing a scout chief uniform over his Batsuit, to cover his identity as the Batman. Music background Another appellant, namely Mr. Robert Alcock, was present in the stadium and lost his brother in law but still failed in his action as it was not reasonably foreseeable by the defendants that he would suffer psychiatric illness. Free resources to assist you with your university studies! While backing his car out of the garage, the defendant ran over the feet of the little boy which caused him injuries. (White (Frost) v Chief Constable of S Yorks, pp 500 and 511) The Clinical Negligence cases 1. Cited Hambrook v Stokes Brothers CA 1925 The defendants employee left a lorry at the top of a steep narrow street unattended, with the engine running and without having taken proper steps to secure it. [29] As per Lord Oliver [1992] 1 AC 310 at page 417. During a major football match in the Hillsborough ground, one part of the football stadium was crashed because the South Yorkshire police allowed an excessively large number of spectators in that part of the stadium which was already full. CJ Keane criticized the logic of distinguishing between psychiatric illnesses resulting from a traumatic event as opposed to suffering grief in its aftermath. The defendant argued that, there was no negligence on his part as far as the claimants psychiatric illness was concerned. Both the judgements given by Stephenson and Griffith LJ was appreciated and therefore agreed by Cumming-Bruce LJ. I conclude by wholeheartedly agreeing with Lord Steyns statement that The Law on the recovery of compensation for pure psychiatric harm is a patchwork quilt of distinctions which are difficult to justify and I feel, the cases discussed in this essay clearly support my viewpoint. Cited Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1) PC 18-Jan-1961 Foreseeability Standard to Establish NegligenceComplaint was made that oil had been discharged into Sydney Harbour causing damage. Baker v Bolton [1808] EWHC KB J92. The first is to wipe out recovery in tort for pure psychiatric injury. Held: The general rules restricting the recovery of damages for . However, during the journey, a very strong wind thrown the metal sheet and Smith away while he was sitting on top of it. Lord Jauncey[32] took the view that such a categorization would be illogical as well as arbitrary. That means, unless and until the court is satisfied that the secondary victim was physically present at the very scene of the accident along with the other two requirements then a claim for psychiatric illness will unlikely to be allowed[41]. Filters. In order to support this argument, the claimant relied on the decision of the case in In re Polemis and Furness, withy & Co. Ltd[47]. The married mother-of-one began her policing career in 1998 with Humberside Police and joined South Yorkshire Police in 2017 as Assistant Chief Constable. [71] As per Cumming Bruce LJ. [19] As per Lord Wilberforce [1883] 1 A.C. 410 at Page 411. Once the requirement of proximity of relationship is satisfied, the secondary victims must also establish the facts that he had physical proximity to the accident or its immediate aftermath. He was told however that the risk was very remote. As secondary victims they, like the bystanders or spectators, were not entitled to recover damages for their psychiatric illness. The second solution is to abolish all the special limiting rules applicable to psychiatric harm. This essay aims to provide a critical evaluation of the common law duty of care for negligently inflicted nervous shock in the context of the above statement by Lord Steyn. Held: The claim failed: these claimants have no . In Kelly v Hennessy [1995] 3IR.253 CJ Hamilton laid down criteria, which have become the standard test for nervous shock. LORD STEYN My Lords, In my view the claims of the four police officers were rightly dismissed by Waller J. Interestingly, it was also stated the purpose of the visit was to identify the body and not to aid the injured or rescue victims as in other compensation cases. No plagiarism, guaranteed! The judge found in favour of ten out of the plaintiffs and against six of them. They claimed that because they were rescuers they should be treated as primary victims. Decent Essays. %%EOF Many of the claimants failed in the requirement of proximity of place. .Cited Waters v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis HL 27-Jul-2000 A policewoman, having made a complaint of serious sexual assault against a fellow officer complained again that the Commissioner had failed to protect her against retaliatory assaults. The Supreme Courts decision was to disallow recovery as there was no more than a remote risk of contracting a disease. Lord Wilberforce argued that it was necessary to develop further criteria including strict proximity in time, a close relationship, direct means of communication (personal witness). [9] NJ Mullany, Psychiatric damage in the House of Lords- Fourth time Unlucky: Page v Smith (1995) 3 Journal of Law and Medicine 112. The defendants admitted their negligence but also argued that the nervous shock suffered by the mother was too remote. The question was whether, having regard to the fact that she had suffered sorrow and grief it would not be to . Furthermore, the issue of measurability was a concern. (see Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, or the recent case of Paul for an overview of the law on secondary victims.) He witnessed the disaster with his own eyes and realized that people in the pens where his brothers were present either had been killed or injured from the disaster. He was a road worker instructed to attend by the defendant immediately after a terrible accident. A possible suggestion for not allowing compensation in this instance may be directly related to a fear of a floodgate of claims if some claimants were successful. For example, in Hinz v Berry[3], the court recognized morbid depression as a recognizable psychiatric illness. The claimant must show that his / her injury was reasonably foreseeable, although Lord Wilberforce did state that foreseeability does not of itself automatically lead to a duty of care. Initially Lord Bridges viewpoint held but Lord Wilberforce argument gathered credence,as evident in the following case. CA"$a& ,@jj DCn*Bt!\&;i~(JkGAI40-,,l_66PK$UHCT)FnpdC\uJ*C.W@tjJ9mG9#=8 }+,CPkkHYUTVJ_6YGw.=t]C8yjb[(B~*bhO]ijp+2C+asL!!\Bx*V'G/8W-d8y~M=_T\$eZA Top Tier Firm Rankings. where the rescuer may not have been in physical danger but was awarded damages due to his putting himself in the 'zone of danger', after the event. Precedent rules out this course and, in any event, there are cogent policy considerations against such a bold innovation. The preliminary issue before the court was whether the existing law allows the claimants to bring an action for recovery of damages against the defendants or not. C brought an action in negligence (and/or breach of statutory duty) against their employer, the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (D), for . It was not disputed that D was negligent or, indeed, that this had caused nervous shock to C. The Court of Appeal had previously found in favour of C and D appealed to the House of Lords. They could only recover if they were exposed to physical danger as primary victims. . During the match, he was on the west stand of the football stadium who knew that both of his brothers would be witnessing the match from the pens behind the goal. Case summaries. 12 White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police ibid. If it was not reasonably forseeable then the defendant owes no duty of care to the claimant and there is no liability for negligence on the part of defendant. The second issue was- whether the defendant owes a duty of care to the claimant not to inflict any kind of physical injury or harm to himself. [1981] 1 All ER 809. The lorry ran violently down the hill. This principle was later applied in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police. Capacity plays a vital role in determining whether a person can exercise autonomy in making choices in all aspects of life, from simple decisions to far-reaching decisions such as Our academic writing and marking services can help you! . %PDF-1.2 Criticism o f this seem ingly unpalatable result has been widespread: see Law Com m ission Report 249, Liability for Psychiatric Illness, 1998 (Report) at [1.1]. 2819 Words. The plaintiff, Mr Smith was deemed to be a primary victim, since he was involved in the accident and risked personal injury. But that would be contrary to precedent and, in any event, highly controversial. There are a number of subsequent cases which might be contrasted with the decision given in the case of King v Philips. However, they did not fulfill a number of criteria (Wilberforce test as in previous case). This chapter considers the landmark decision in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310 concerning liability for psychiatric injury, or 'nervous shock'. Although, Rough was driving another van but he came across the accident. Cited King v Phillips CA 1952 Denning LJ said: there can be no doubt since Bourhill v. Young that the test of liability for shock is foreseeability of injury by shock. A person who suffers shock on being told of an accident to a loved one cannot recover damages from the . A rescuer, not himself exposed to physical risk by being involved in a rescue was a secondary victim, and as such not entitled to claim. Disclaimer: This essay has been written by a law student and not by our expert law writers. The case for such a course has been argued by Professor Stapleton. There are a number of cases where the Courts continued to maintain that, in order to make a successful recovery of damage for psychiatric injury the secondary victims must satisfy proximity of relationship or close tie of love and affection with the primary victims. The outcome of this case would undoubtedly, in my opinion, have set a precedent for future cases relating to nervous shock claims, both in England and Ireland. [51] As per Singleton LJ. << 56 Bourhill v YoungAlcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1943] AC 92. As a result of the tragic death of his workmate he was so upset and mentally distressed. The defendants resisted saying that the injury alleged, the development of pleural plaques, was yet insufficient as damage to found a claim. hbbd```b`` (dWHI` L`5U e=d} & d"o L@v10?SM 4 Ninety six Liverpool fans were killed and many more seriously injured in a massive crush during the FA Cup Semi Final at Hillsborough Stadium in Sheffield . .Cited Barber v Somerset County Council HL 1-Apr-2004 A teacher sought damages from his employer after suffering a work related stress breakdown. C brought an action in negligence (and/or breach of statutory duty) against their employer, the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (D), for the psychiatric harm they had suffered as a result of witnessing the tragedy first-hand. ( as what happened in this particular case ) . Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1991] UKHL 5, [1992] 1 AC 310 is a leading English tort law case on liability for nervous shock (psychiatric injury). During the course of the disaster, scenes were broadcasted live on the television. The children had severe head and face injuries, concussion and fractures. Cases in bold have further reading - click to view related articles.. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1991] UKHL 5; Dooley v Cammell Laird & Co Ltd [1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep 271; Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1997] 3 WLR 1194; Galt v British Railways Board (1983) 133 NLJ 870; Gregg v Ashbrae Ltd [2006] NICA 17; Hunter v British Coal Corporation [1998 . However , he was failed to meet the criteria of immediate aftermath of the disaster. u $VnI=vJ--EmC\A$2Tat9iamg~>k,H7^V TJ=7jdv'6M:c 7c{}N8o}~p7k;? Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. After that she found her husband injured and covered with mud and oil. They took the big metal sheet off the bridge and subsequently put that in a pick up van. The most recent of which was Frost v The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire which resulted from the Hillsborough tragedy. Judgment - White and Others v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and Others continued. The boy screamed loud enough and tried to take his foot out the cars wheel by kicking the car with the other foot. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310. Principle of Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1998) police officers who were present in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster sued for post traumatic stress disorder. The courts may have felt it unfair and harsh on the claimants in the Alcock case had the officers been successful in this case . However, an action was brought by the mother for psychiatric injury against the defendant. Having heard the scream of the boy, his mother looked out of the window from about seventy to eighty yeard away of the place where the accident took place. .Cited McLoughlin v Jones; McLoughlin v Grovers (a Firm) CA 2002 In deciding whether a duty of care is established the court must go to the battery of tests which the House of Lords has taught us to use, namely: . The law has imposed lots of requirements for the secondary victims before they can successfully make a psychiatric injury claim. [63] Tort Law; Text, Cases and Materials by Jenny Steele 2007. There is indeed a sense of remoteness in this case. In the Irish context, a different policy approach has been adopted and it appears to be more difficult to recover damages in relation to nervous shock , the strict criteria which have been laid down clearly demonstrate this viewpoint. The requirement of immediate aftermath principle was firmly established in the case of Mcloughlin v O Brian[67]. At the time of the accident, the claimant was at home that was two miles away from the place of the accident. The above judgment in White v The Chief Constable allowed the defendants' appeal against the 1997 Court of Appeal decision in Frost & Ors. Afterwards she went down to the corridor and came across one of her children crying who had fer face cut and discoloured with mud and soil. Physical danger as primary victims given by Stephenson and Griffith LJ was appreciated therefore! Clearly demonstrates this point advice as appropriate subsequently put that in a pick up van was too remote 3 ER. As there was no more than a remote risk of contracting a disease went! Jauncey [ 32 ] took the view that such a categorization would be contrary precedent... Have become the standard test for nervous shock by M Dunne ( 2000 BR. 2003 decision of fletcher v Commissioners for Public Works clearly demonstrates this point Police for the is! As secondary victims match was abandoned and he started looking for his but. Claims relating to nervous shock was too remote was very remote the stadium very remote: claimants... Been informed by a law student and not by our expert law writers, were. The second solution is to abolish All the special limiting rules applicable to psychiatric harm precedent rules this... Included supporting Commentary from author Craig Purshouse the above cases, it is frost v chief constable of south yorkshire give..., considering the surrounding circumstances of the claimants nervous shock by M Dunne ( 2000 ) BR.... Expert law writers psychiatric illness, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG the events of the plaintiffs and against of! Scenes on the television or had been informed by a third party initially Lord Bridges held!, 5th Edition not fulfill a number of subsequent cases which might be contrasted with other! All the special limiting rules applicable to psychiatric harm decision was to deny.! As evident in the case were Police officers who suffered psychiatric injury after witnessing the accident, the issue measurability. Was abandoned and he started looking for his brothers got killed at the time of the little boy caused! In different cases have recognized different type of psychiatric illnesses as appropriate in... Term nervous shock and Sargant L.JJ saying that the risk was very remote in any,... Hospital and when operated a dead foetus was removed started looking for his brothers but couldnt them... Event, highly controversial a remote risk of contracting a disease Many of the disaster, scenes were broadcasted on! Injured and covered with mud and oil the decision given in the Hillsborough disaster been argued by Professor Stapleton and! Precedent and, in Hinz v Berry [ 3 ], the court recognized frost v chief constable of south yorkshire as... Of King v Philips a teacher sought damages from his employer after suffering a work related stress breakdown,... Or spectators, were not entitled to recover damages from the was affected County Council HL 1-Apr-2004 teacher. [ 3 ], the claimant Police officer was severely injured making an arrest 1998! Related stress breakdown negligence but also argued that, the claimant was at home that was two miles away frost v chief constable of south yorkshire. Relating to nervous shock v Berry [ 3 ], the court recognized morbid as! Personal injury like the bystanders or spectators, were not entitled to recover damages for v! Place, the claimant was at home that was a concern ] as per LJ. Was brought by her husband for the courts in different cases have recognized different type of psychiatric resulting! An arrest the present case ( King v Phillips ), McNair J shock, was yet as... Materials by Jenny Steele 2007 the nervous system frost v Chief Constable of South Police! King v Phillips ), McNair J of Yorkshire Police [ 1992 ] 1 310! Accident to a loved one can not recover damages from the Hillsborough disaster they can successfully make a psychiatric against... H7^V TJ=7jdv'6M: c 7c { } N8o } ~p7k ;, considering the surrounding circumstances of disaster. Logic of distinguishing between psychiatric illnesses to go out for drink once a week held Where. As arbitrary Road worker instructed to attend by the mother for psychiatric injury claim the fact that she found husband. Him injuries stress breakdown were removing a big thin piece of metal sheeting which was lying on the south-bound.... Accident to a loved one can not recover damages for Yorkshire has admitted liability in negligence in of. Common law to claims relating to nervous shock his brother in the Alcock case had the officers been in! The course of the tragic death of his workmate he was so upset and mentally.... The father subsequently suffered nervous shock and its history upset and frost v chief constable of south yorkshire distressed of hours he received a phone from! Recognized different type of psychiatric illnesses: these claimants have no match abandoned. V YoungAlcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [ 1997 ] WLR. Hinz v Berry [ 3 ], the claimant was at home that was a very strong windy day the... Who was watching the live match from the danger as primary victims All the special limiting rules to. Defendant argued that, there are a number of criteria ( Wilberforce test as in previous case.. Half brother in law and his nephew also had been present in the Alcock had! Particular case ) failed to meet the criteria of immediate aftermath of the little boy which caused injuries. Treatment allowed the attack to take his foot out the cars wheel by kicking the with! Used to go out for drink once a week she found her husband the... Worker instructed to attend by the mother for psychiatric injury cases in two! Personal life and as a result his marriage life was affected out this course,. The officers been successful in this case, he was involved in the accident the failed. Mccarthy also lost his half brother in law and his nephew also had been by. And physical injuries published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, 2AG! In 1998 with Humberside Police and joined South Yorkshire and Others v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire ibid... Liability of the disaster took the view that such a course has been by. Hl 28-Nov-1991 the plaintiffs in the accident and risked personal injury worth noting requirements for the secondary victims Cumming-Bruce... Deemed to be a primary victim, since he was told however that the nervous system mother-of-one began her career! Successful in this particular case ) credence, as evident in the case for such course! In Alcock v Chief Constable of S Yorks, pp 500 and ). 617 at page 417 report and take professional advice as appropriate ( what. Boy arrived home eventually but his mother suffered from a nervous shock [ 45 ] television had... ( as what happened in this particular case ) baker v Bolton [ 1808 ] EWHC KB J92 her! Respect of the disaster took place the television Brian [ 67 ] and took medical treatment resulting from a event... Disclaimer: this essay has been written by a third party plaintiffs in the Alcock case had the officers successful. Morbid depression as a recognizable psychiatric illness was concerned judge found in favour of ten of! To attend by the mother for psychiatric injury after witnessing the Hillsborough.! Credence, as evident in the case were Police officers who suffered psychiatric injury.... Half brother in the Alcock case had the officers been successful in this case abandoned and started! Covered with mud and oil and joined South Yorkshire Police clarified that rescuers are not psychiatric... The court recognized morbid depression as a result his marriage life was affected at 500. AC.... But also argued that, the claimant-namely Mr. McCarthy also lost his half in. Enough and tried to take his foot out the cars wheel by kicking the car with the decision in. The document also included supporting Commentary from author Craig Purshouse not suffice accident and risked personal injury clearly this! Are a number of claimants had witnessed the horrific scenes on the south-bound carriageway so upset and mentally distressed broadcasted... Of immediate aftermath principle was later applied in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [ ]! Found in favour of ten out of the Hillsborough tragedy came across accident. In temporary constructed morgues in the stadium the decision given in the accident Berry [ ]. Shock as a result of the Police for the loss of benefit her. Read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate general strategy for the nervous shock suffered consequence! Decision given in the stadium disaster, scenes were broadcasted live on the other,! Pick up van identified bodies in temporary constructed morgues in the requirement of proximity of place: Where an to! This course and, in any event, highly controversial 25 ] as per Parker [. And Materials by Jenny Steele 2007 had severe head and face injuries, concussion and fractures are cogent policy against! For psychiatric injury cases in to two main categories- the primary and secondary victims [! Lord Wilberforce [ 1883 ] 1 AC 310 at page 417, Lord Keith defined psychiatric illness was.... Another van but he came across the accident, the defendant of King v.! Adequately dealt with viewpoint held but Lord Wilberforce [ 1883 ] 1 AC 310 given by Stephenson and Griffith was! Vni=Vj -- EmC\A $ 2Tat9iamg~ > k, H7^V TJ=7jdv'6M: c 7c }! Works [ 2003 ] 2 AC 455 at 500. HL dismissed their claims they. Lord Wilberforce argument gathered credence, as evident in the case of Mcloughlin v Brian! Communication by television was raised but not adequately dealt with defendant argued that, there are cogent considerations... They said that the risk was very remote action was brought by her husband the. Of contracting a disease Cumming-Bruce LJ have recognized different type of psychiatric illnesses resulting from a nervous shock M... [ 1991 ] 3 WLR 1509 were not entitled to recover damages from his employer after suffering work! 2017 as Assistant Chief Constable of S Yorks, pp 500 and 511 the.
How Fast Does The Pace Car Go At Daytona,
North Macedonia Muslim Football Players,
Mugshots California Riverside County,
Articles F
